The Great Confederate Bayonet Debate

[Mississippian]

Gentlemen,

I'd like to start a topic on Confederate bayonet usage during the war. Over the course of my studies of Confederate ordnance records I have come across many instances where C.S. units had less than 50% of their arms equipped with bayonets, yet I can't seem to recall very many C.S. reenactors, who were bayonet less in their impression. For example, during an inspection of the Army of the West at Grenada MS in December 1862, there were 11,438 small arms in the hands of the infantry, compared with only 5,854 bayonets, which means only 51% of the whole army had bayonets. (Here is the link to the OR report: http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cg...image;seq=0847 )

Looking at Hebert's Brigade on Jan. 24th 1863 while at Vicksburg:

3rd LA: 250 arms, 102 Bayonets: 40.8% bayonet usage
36th MS: 337 arms, 128 Bayonet: 38%
37th MS: 443 arms, 421 Bayonets: 95%
38th MS: 259 arms, 180 Bayonets: 69%
46th MS: 436 arms, 189 Bayonets: 43%
7th MS Batt: 158 arms, 83 Bayonets: 52%

Total: 1883 arms, 1103 bayonets: 58% of armed men in the brigade had bayonets.


While the standard answer of "Rebels threw away everything that was useless" is undoubtedly true in some of these cases, I have come across references to problems with ill fitting bayonets and scabbards that were far too small to hold any bayonet or that were too poorly made to be of use. For whatever reason this lack of bayonets should change how we look at our Confederate impressions. And it brings up other questions, like how and if a unit which was lacking bayonets would stack muskets.

I'll keep posting numbers of different units as time permits, but I wanted to get the ball rolling, as it were...

Will MacDonald

[GenuineInformation]

Will,

I know from our past conversations that we definitely agree on this point.

While it does nothing to describe overall bayonet usage by Confederates, Col. Granbury of the 7th Texas Infantry notes in his AAR for Raymond the following:

"As my skirmishers neared the wood on the brow of the hill, the enemy commenced firing from their first line of infantry, posted near the base of the hill. I ordered my regiment to advance in double-quick time. The men obeyed with alacrity, and, when in view of the enemy, rushed forward with a shout. So near were the enemy and so impetuous the charge, that my regiment could have blooded a hundred bayonets had the men been supplied with that weapon."

Interesting quote. It appears to me that they didn't have any bayonets at all. He also notes elsewhere in the AAR that Co. A was armed with Enfields. Archaeological evidence I have read turns up lots of buckshot on the area of the battlefield where Granbury's Texas were engaged. This is interesting because frequently I have heard that Enfields came with bayonets, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Nor does it appear his soldiers armed with smoothbores have bayonets.

Best,
JSK

[Bmanz1085]

As far as stacking without bayonets, Hardees has instructions for stacking arms using the ramrod as the interlocking device.

[big muddy mess]

I would caution you in using repro ramrods to stack arms with. I have seen attempts of doing this that resulted in the end of the ramrod seperating. YMMV.

[Curt Schmidt]

Hallo!

With the usual caveat aobut unit, time, and place...

I agree, Confederates bayonets are over-represented in reenacting. Much like slings.

And although apples and oranges, over on the Federal side... I am reminded of the March 1863 court martial of Colonel Hiram Berdan who in 1862 purpsoely "sabotaged" bayonets for his Sharpshooters' Sharps rifles so that out of 426 rifles there were only 247 bayonets. (248 additional ones were ordered and arrived in June of 1863 in time for Gettysburg.)

Adn yes, reproduction ramrods are poorly made their being sleeved and brazed rather than pinned and brazed. So, yes for reenacting one will likely eventually bend or snap one of when stacking using the ramrod method. Historically, that was less of an issue.

Curt

[dixieflyer]

Will,
I had this conversation recently among some fellow travelers. I mentioned that we all "had one" and carried it, yet when a few guys in a company don't have a bayonet, it seems to set up a moan, griping, etc. As you mentioned, and I've seen it to from time to time in CS ordnance returns, etc., having at least 1/4th to 1/3rd of the CS troops at an event without bayonets would seem an appropriate portrayal.

[David Jarnagin]

In a letter dated September 15, 1864 from Col. HYpolite commander of Columbus to Col Wright at Augusta. He talks about how Col. Logwood I believe who was at Selma Arsenal had told them to stop making bayonets. In the next paragraph he states that Col. White, which should be at the same arsenal, is asking for bayonets to fit caliber .69, .57 and .58 weapons.

Bayonet reamers are found in the listing of tools at most arsenals. I could see where it could be a major problem when you look at the total number of different arms coming from different countries and makers and I am sure the bayonets if they got separated from their gun would have been a pain to find another one that would fit.


Curt,
What it odd I would have agreed with you but after looking at the late war records for CS there is a lot of musket slings being issued. The other one that surprised me was cartridge box belts. More to learn.


David Jarnagin
djarnagin@bellsouth.net

[Mississippian]

Gents,

Here is something that is interesting, an Inspection report for Johnson's Division of Anderson's "Fourth" Corps of then ANV: http://www.blueandgraymarching.com/f...-division.html

This being the relevant part: "There is a deficiency in bayonets in the command, and it is difficult to remedy from the following fact. The guns are Enfield and Springfield Rifles. The Enfields are each numbered and so is the bayonet belonging to that gun, and will fit no other. There is now on hand, in the ordnance wagons of brigades, over 400 bayonets. Yet of that number not 25 can be procured to fit the guns wanting bayonets. Another point. The bayonet scabbards which have been recently received are too small to contain the Enfield bayonet and are therefore useless."

This particular report is dated from November 1864.

Will MacDonald

[dixieflyer]

Haha, kind of goes hand in glove with my recent bayonet scabbard post, doesn't it?

[Mississippian]

Warren,

It does, but I think more stringent federal inspections and better quality scabbards on the Northern side made it less a problem than on the Confederate side.

Joseph,

Since the 7th Texas was an exchanged regiment from Ft. Donelson, it's likely they got their arms from a storage/arms repair depot that didn't have very many bayonets on hand. I know the Department of Mississippi and East Louisiana got some very large shipments of arms that had been picked up on battlefields in Virginia, repaired, and then sent west. A lot of those guns were supposed to go to the Trans-MS, but Pemberton hijacked them and issued them to troops in his department. I'm willing to bet that that is where the 7th got their Enfields, and if that is the case, then the lack of bayonets as well.

Will MacDonald